New electoral arrangements for Bedford Borough Council New Draft Recommendations May 2021 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2021

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical. Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Bedford? 2 Our proposals for Bedford 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and new draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 New draft recommendations 7 North East Bedford Town 9 South East Bedford Town 11 North West Bedford Town 14 Kempston 16 South Bedford 18 East Bedford 20 North Bedford 22 West Bedford 24 Conclusions 26 Summary of electoral arrangements 26 Parish electoral arrangements 26 Have your say 30 Equalities 34 Appendices 36 Appendix A 36 New draft recommendations for Bedford Borough Council 36 Appendix B 39 Outline map 39 Appendix C 41 Submissions received 41 Appendix D 43 Glossary and abbreviations 43

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Steve Robinson (Chair) • Andrew Scallan CBE • Susan Johnson OBE • Peter Maddison QPM • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chief Executive)

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1 6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Bedford?

7 We are conducting a review of Bedford Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Bedford. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Bedford are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Bedford

9 Bedford should be represented by 46 councillors, six more than there are now.

10 Bedford should have 28 wards, one more than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all but one ward should change.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not consider parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

Have your say

14 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Bedford. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation

2 informed our draft recommendations. However, we received a number of new warding schemes which had not been raised during the previous round of consultation, and we also made substantial changes to wards in the south of the borough in response to submissions received. In consideration of this, we have decided to publish a brand-new set of draft recommendations, especially given the scale of changes proposed.

15 We will consult on the new draft recommendations for an eight-week period, from 11 May 2021 to 5 July 2021. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

16 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

17 You have until 5 July 2021 to have your say on the new draft recommendations. See page 31 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

18 February 2020 Number of councillors decided 25 February 2020 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 4 May 2020 forming draft recommendations 8 June 2020 Start of additional ward consultation in response to Covid-19 20 July 2020 End of additional consultation 29 September Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 2020 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 4 January 2021 forming new recommendations Publication of new draft recommendations and start of 11 May 2021 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 5 July 2021 forming final recommendations 31 August 2021 Publication of final recommendations

3

4 Analysis and new draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2019 2026 Electorate of Bedford 130,131 148,921 Number of councillors 46 46 Average number of electors per 2,829 3,237 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Bedford will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the originally scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 14% by 2025.

25 Owing to the additional ward consultation in summer 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and to this further round of consultation on new draft recommendations, our final recommendations are now scheduled to be published in 2021. We are therefore working to a 2026 electoral forecast, and are content that the

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5 Council’s original forecast represents a reasonable estimate of the number of electors for the borough by 2026. We have used these figures to produce our new draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

26 Bedford Borough Council currently has 40 councillors. We looked at evidence provided by the Council and concluded that increasing this number by six will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 46 councillors – for example, 46 one-councillor wards or a mix of one-, two-, and three-councillor wards.

28 We received one submission about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding. The submission was developed by a working group of Bedford councillors and considered that the Council required an increase in members in order to strengthen strategic leadership, accountability and community leadership. It cited heavy councillor workloads, a lack of capacity to create a seventh scrutiny committee, and changes in the Council’s size and structure to support an increase. Having carefully considered the evidence received, we have based our new draft recommendations on a 46-member council.

Ward boundaries consultation

29 We received 89 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included two borough-wide proposals from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups and a partial proposal from the Labour Group. The Labour Group’s proposal focused on the areas of Bedford town, Kempston, Great Barford, Bromham, Biddenham, and Clapham. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

30 The two borough-wide schemes provided mixed patterns of one- and two- councillor wards for Bedford. The partial scheme submitted by the Labour Group provided a mixed pattern of one-, two-, and three-councillor wards. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the pattern of wards proposed by the Liberal Democrat Group resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

31 Both the Conservative and Labour groups’ submissions contained multiple wards with high electoral variances, so did not form the basis of our recommendations. However, elements of both schemes were adopted in our draft recommendations, where we considered that they more closely reflected the statutory criteria than the Liberal Democrat Group scheme.

6 32 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

33 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed virtual tour of Bedford. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of our recommendations.

Draft recommendations 34 We received 207 responses to the consultation on our initial set of draft recommendations. These included partial schemes from the Conservative Group, Labour Group, Bedford Green Party, as well as Kempston Labour Party, Kempston borough councillors, and Kempston Town Council. All of these proposals made modifications to certain areas of our draft recommendations. The Liberal Democrat Group submission made two minor changes to our draft recommendations.

35 Of these submissions, 55 concerned the Castle Road area, and 43 referred to the area covered by the existing Queens Park ward. We also received 32 submissions regarding wards in the rural south of the borough, 13 in response to our draft recommendations for Kempston, and 11 for wards in the rural north of the borough. Almost all of these submissions were unsupportive of our draft recommendations. Consequently, we have adopted elements of the warding schemes received for all these areas, except in the rural south of the borough, where we have created a new set of proposed wards in response to the submissions received.

36 The scale of these changes, and the fact that the parish of Elstow has been divided between two wards in order to accommodate our proposals in the rural south, convinced us that it would be proper to consult on a new set of draft recommendations before publishing our final recommendations.

New draft recommendations 37 The tables and maps on pages 9–25 detail our new draft recommendations for each area of Bedford Borough Council. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7 • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on page 37 and on the large map accompanying this report.

39 We welcome all comments on these new draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

8 North East Bedford Town

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Brickhill 2 4% De Parys 2 5% Goldington 2 -1% Harpur 2 -5% Putnoe 2 -1%

Brickhill, De Parys and Putnoe 40 The Liberal Democrat Group proposed a minor amendment to the Brickhill- Putnoe boundary. Under the draft recommendations, two dwellings in Troon Close had their homes in Putnoe but their gardens in Brickhill. The submission proposes transferring the gardens into Putnoe. As these gardens are within the boundaries of Brickhill parish, we would be obliged to create a parish ward for Brickhill Parish Council with no electors – which we cannot do. However, Bedford Borough Council has the option to move the two gardens out of Brickhill parish via a Community Governance Review once our review has concluded.

9 41 We received three individual submissions for Brickhill ward. One, from a Brickhill parish councillor, supported the inclusion of Woodlands Park in the proposed ward. Two submissions from residents opposed the inclusion of part of the parish around Brickhill Drive in De Parys ward, with one arguing that the area is only accessible from the proposed Brickhill ward. However, the area is accessible from the proposed De Parys ward via Kimbolton Road, and the left-hand side of the mouth of Brickhill Drive at the junction is also in De Parys ward (the rest of the road is fully within De Parys ward). In addition, the inclusion of this area in Brickhill ward would result in an electoral variance of 18%. We have therefore kept the area in our proposed De Parys ward.

42 The Conservative Group scheme, which continued to dispute the Council’s electoral forecasts, particularly in De Parys ward, included the area south of Tavistock Street in the ward. However, we have not received sufficient community evidence to suggest this would be appropriate, and no justification was provided by the Conservative Group other than to prevent what it believed would be an undersizing of the ward. We have therefore not adopted this proposal in our new draft recommendations.

Goldington and Harpur 43 We received one submission supporting our proposed Goldington ward. The Green Party proposed including the area between Tavistock Street, Bromham Road, Union Street, and The Broadway in Harpur ward, as under the existing arrangements. It argued that it was “virtually impossible to see any rationale” for including this area anywhere else, as the A4280 Bromham Road had always acted as a natural barrier between communities. We were able to adopt this proposal in our further draft recommendations as a result of our reorganisation of the Castle ward, which is discussed in detail later in this report. Moreover, we are persuaded that the proposed boundary will be more clearly identifiable and therefore provide for effective and convenient local government.

10 South East Bedford Town

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Castle 2 -5% Cauldwell 3 9% Kingsbrook 2 1% Newnham 1 -10% Priory 1 7%

Castle, Newnham, and Priory 44 We received 55 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Castle ward, and two similar proposals by Labour and the Greens. All made very clear the strong sense of community identity and shared amenities in the Castle Road area, as well as the universal definition of the community as residing between High Street, Newnham Avenue, Goldington Road, and the river. As mentioned in the draft recommendations report, it is not possible to create a ward with good electoral equality within these boundaries. However, both the Labour and Green submissions built around this basic configuration without splitting the community.

11 45 Both the Labour and Green proposals included Aylesbury Road, Hatfield Crescent, Risborough Road, and Wendover Drive to the east of Newnham Avenue in the ward. As the properties in this area backed onto the surrounding properties in Newnham ward – including those on Goldington Road – and were directly accessible from Newnham Avenue, we were content that this was a logical inclusion. The Labour proposal included Harpenden Close, which is accessed via Aylesbury Road, giving Newnham ward an electoral variance of -10%. The Green proposal included Harpenden Close in Newnham ward, as well as the left-hand side of the approach down Aylesbury Road from Wendover Drive in Newnham Drive, resulting in an 8% variance for Newnham. While both of these proposals are conducive to effective and convenient local government, in that it is not necessary to cross from one ward into another to access Harpenden Close, we believe it would be more appropriate to include it in Castle ward, as it is ‘faces’ that way. However, we would be interested to hear from residents on which ward they would prefer to be included.

46 Both Labour and the Green Party put forward a new ward to the west of their proposed Castle wards which essentially contained the town centre. The Greens’ proposed Priory ward kept to the north bank of the river, while Labour’s proposed Bedford Central ward crossed the river to incorporate part of our draft Britannia ward. As we have previously observed the river to be a strong natural barrier, and received several submissions in all stages of consultation asking that the river act as a ward boundary, we have not adopted the Labour proposal. The eastern boundary of Labour’s proposed ward follows the middle of High Street, while the Green proposal uses Harpur Street and St Paul’s Square as its eastern boundary. We note that, were Priory to use the middle of High Street as its eastern boundary, this would create an 11% electoral variance. We also believe it to be conducive to effective and convenient local government that both sides of the High Street are included in one ward, as any issues faced by one side are likely to also be borne by the other. We have therefore adopted the Greens’ Priory ward in our further draft recommendations.

Cauldwell and Kingsbrook 47 As described above, the Labour submission included part of our draft Britannia ward in its proposed Bedford Central ward. The remainder was included in its proposed Cauldwell ward. This proposal reflected concerns we received in 11 submissions from residents that the draft recommendations, in running the boundary between Britannia and Cauldwell down Ampthill Road, split a community which exists on either side. However, as described above, we did not adopt Labour’s proposed Bedford Central ward, and the scheme in any case created a 16% variance for Cauldwell ward.

48 To resolve this issue, we have combined the Britannia and Cauldwell wards we proposed in our original recommendations into one three-councillor Cauldwell ward, which includes all the existing Cauldwell ward and the existing Castle ward south of

12 the river. This creates a ward with a 1% electoral variance. However, in order to create a Wixams & Wilstead ward to the south, which includes Elstow and Stewartby parishes, we have included the area of Elstow parish north of the waterway by Elstow Abbey (Progress Way, West End, High Street, and surrounding streets) in our proposed Cauldwell ward (see paragraphs 56–59). In doing so we note that the housing around Progress Way, while more recent and of a different style to the surrounding 1930s housing, is essentially an urban extension of the Cauldwell area and a significant distance from Elstow village. However, as we note that the area takes on a more rural tone south of West End, we would be interested to hear from residents as to whether the waterway is an appropriate ward boundary.

49 The Labour submission returned Redwood Grove and The Sidings to Kingsbrook ward, as they face Kingsbrook and are “separated from Cauldwell by the railway bridge”, as well as including a number of properties on Acorn Way inKingsbrook ward. We are persuaded that these small changes will reflect community identities and provide for a more logical ward boundary. We have therefore incorporated these changes as part of our wider proposals for Cauldwell ward. Our three-member Cauldwell ward will have a 9% electoral variance by 2026.

13 North West Bedford Town

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Biddenham 1 -9% Great Denham 1 -1% Queens Park 3 -8%

Biddenham and Great Denham 50 We received two submissions in support of our proposed Great Denham ward, one from a resident and one from Great Denham Parish Council. We did not receive

14 any submissions in response to our proposals for Biddenham ward and have therefore retained it in our new draft recommendations.

Queens Park 51 We received 43 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Queens and Allen Park wards. While three of these were supportive of the recommendations and merely suggested alternative ward names, the rest were deeply opposed to the proposed wards. These included submissions from residents, Faith in Queens Park, and All Saints Parish Church. They stressed the strong sense of multi-ethnic and multi-faith community identity in the area and that the boundary between the proposed Queens and Allen Park wards arbitrarily divided an area of early 20th-century housing and the community which lived there. The submission by Faith in Queens Park emphasised the close relations between All Saints Parish Church, Jamia Masjid Gulshane-e-Baghdad Mosque, and Guru Nanak Gurdwara, and the school visits the group organises, arguing that splitting the existing Queens Park ward would disrupt this community co-operation. The Labour submission expressed a preference for maintaining the existing boundaries of the ward with three councillors.

52 We have carefully considered the evidence received and are persuaded to amend our recommendations in line with the community evidence provided. We also note that this proposal achieves good electoral equality with a variance of -8% by 2026.

15 Kempston

Number of Ward Variance 2026 councillors Kempston Central & East 2 7% Kempston North 1 1% Kempston South 1 1% Kempston West 1 8%

Kempston Central & East, Kempston North, Kempston South, and Kempston West 53 We received 13 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Kempston, all of which were critical of the proposals. These included submissions from residents, the Labour Group, Kempston Labour Party, Kempston’s borough councillors, Kempston Town Council, Mohammad Yasin MP (Bedford), and

16 Councillor Kay Burley. The submission by Kempston Town Council went into considerable detail on the shortcomings of our draft recommendations for this area, noting that the boundaries arbitrarily cut through communities and areas of the town built at different periods which retained distinct characters. This was particularly the case regarding the boundary between the proposed Kempston South & Central and Kempston North & East wards. The Town Council stated that this would not only “combine long roads of terraced houses in the centre that make use of schools and facilities on Bedford and Balliol Roads with the separate north area of the town which is made up of primarily 1970s houses in closes off of Hillgrounds Road” but actually run down the middle of the shared Daubeney Academy and Springfield Primary School campus.

54 All the submissions emphasised that the existing ward boundaries represent the various communities in Kempston well, and several pointed out that they would need only minor adjustments to achieve good electoral variances. A scheme to this effect was submitted by Kempston Town Council, which was identical to that included in the Labour Group’s wider scheme. This moves Marlborough Park, Austin Canons Way, and the north side of Bedford Road from Kempston Central & East to Kempston North; the area west of St Johns Avenue from Kempston Central & East to Kempston West; the south side of Elstow Road from Kempston Central & East to Kempston South; a number of properties on Woburn Road from Kempston South to Kempston West; the area east of Manor Drive (Greys Education Centre) from Kempston West to Kempston North; and, in line with our draft recommendations, extends the western boundary of Kempston West to The Branston Way bypass.

55 While we accepted the community evidence for most of these changes, we noted that the electoral variance for Kempston West under this scheme was 12%, not 9%, as in the Labour Group submission. As with our draft recommendations, we were only able to resolve this by running the ward boundary down the middle of High Street, which reduced the variance down to 8%. While we appreciate that the street is in a conservation area, and is very much distinct from Bedford Road to the west, we noted that most of the properties of the north side of the street appeared to be significantly older than those on the south side, many of which appear to be of mid- century construction, and that most of the few retail and hospitality venues on the street are also on the north side. Therefore, while we have adopted this Kempston Town Council/Labour Group scheme, we have placed the boundary between Kempston West and Kempston Central & East down the middle of High Street in order to achieve good electoral equality for Kempston West. However, we remain open to modifications elsewhere which would enable both sides of High Street to remain in Kempston West ward.

17 South Bedford

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Shortstown 2 -10% Wixams & Wilstead 3 6%

Shortstown and Wixams & Wilstead 56 We received 32 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for this area which, in the absence of any other schemes with acceptable electoral variances, were based on the Liberal Democrat submission to our warding consultation. This combined Wixams and Stewartby parishes into a two-councillor ward; Elstow and Shortstown parishes into a two-councillor ward; and Wilshamstead (Wilstead), Cotton End, Cardington, and Cople parishes into a one-councillor ward. All the submissions we received were opposed to this warding pattern, with the exception of one submission from Cardington Parish Council.

18 57 Elstow Parish Council and a number of local residents told us they had no links to Stewartby, while they continue to maintain historical links with Wilstead, including shared sports clubs, footpaths, cycleways, and bus routes, which make various forms of travel between the villages very easy. Likewise, Wilshamstead Parish Council, Wixams Parish Council, Councillor Graeme Coombes, and local residents told us that Wixams and Wilstead had a very close relationship and many shared amenities, including shops, takeaways, post office, village shop, schools, churches, and village halls. Furthermore, Wixams residents said they had no relationship with Stewartby, which felt remote.

58 The Conservatives’ submission offered two warding patterns for the area. One grouped Wixams and Wilstead parishes in a two-councillor Wixams & Wilstead ward with a 4% electoral variance; Stewartby, Elstow, Cotton End parishes with Shortstown parish west of The High Road and The Highway in a two-councillor Elstow, Stewartby & Shortstown ward with an electoral variance of 5%; and Shortstown parish east of The High Road and The Highway with Cotton End, Cardington, and Cople parishes in a one-councillor New Cardington ward with an electoral variance of 7%. The alternative was to combine the latter two into one three-councillor Elstow, Stewartby & Shortstown ward with an electoral variance of 6%. However, we considered the combined ward to be too large and did not consider that splitting Shortstown parish down the middle would reflect the local community or be conducive to effective and convenient local government.

59 We concluded that the optimal ward pattern would involve grouping Elstow, Stewartby, Wilstead, and Wixams in a three-councillor Wixams & Wilstead ward, and Shortstown, Cotton End, Cardington, and Cople in a one-councillor Shortstown ward. The latter was easily achieved with an acceptable electoral variance of -10%. However, the former resulted in a 15% variance which, even balancing the clear community benefits of such an arrangement, was too high to be acceptable. As described in paragraph 48, we were able to resolve this by running the northern boundary of the ward along the waterway which forms part of Elstow parish’s northern border, moving Progress Way, West End, High Street, Abbey Fields, and their associated streets into Cauldwell ward. We noted that this area was mostly a modern urban overspill from the Cauldwell area and was significantly removed from Elstow village on the other side of the A421. This allowed us to achieve a 6% electoral variance in Wixams & Wilstead ward. Given the significant changes we are proposing here, we would particularly welcome comments on our revised proposals for this area.

19 East Bedford

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Great Barford 1 -2% Renhold & Ravensden 1 -2% Wyboston 1 -9%

20 Great Barford and Renhold & Ravensden 60 We received two submissions from members of the public in support of our proposed Great Barford ward. We received six submissions from residents and Renhold Parish Council in response to our proposed Renhold & Ravensden ward, all but one of which were supportive. One resident objected on the basis that Ravensden was more rural in nature, but other submissions emphasised the close relationship between the two parishes. One resident proposed including Wilden in the ward to give greater weight to its rural parts, but this would result in a -13% variance for Great Barford ward, so we have not adopted this suggestion. We have therefore retained our proposed Great Barford and Renhold & Ravensden wards as part of our new draft recommendations.

Wyboston 61 We received six submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Wyboston, all of which were opposed. Little Staughton Parish Council objected to being included in our proposed Riseley ward, arguing it was more affected by issues in Wyboston, where it is currently placed. We also received a submission from Thurleigh Parish Council which stated the village had a closer affinity with the smaller villages in Riseley ward, where it is currently placed, and were concerned by the potential for up to 10,000 homes to be built in Wyboston in the Local Plan. A resident made similar arguments against Bolnhurst & Keysoe parish being included in Wyboston ward. In response to these submissions, we have moved Little Staughton parish into Wyboston ward and Thurleigh parish into Riseley ward. However, in the interests of maintaining good electoral equality in Wyboston ward, we have kept Bolnhurst & Keysoe in Wyboston ward and moved Pertenhall parish – which has good road links with Bolnhurst & Keysoe and Little Staughton – into Wyboston ward from Riseley ward. This results in a -9% variance for Wyboston.

21 North Bedford

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Harrold 1 2% Riseley 1 5% Sharnbrook 1 6%

Harrold, Riseley, and Sharnbrook 62 We received nine submissions in response to our draft recommendations for this area, none of which were supportive of the proposals. Submissions from Councillors Martin Thompson and Martin Towler recommended moving Thurleigh and Knotting & Souldrop parishes into our Riseley ward owing to their closer characters and associations with the parishes in that ward, as well as moving Milton

22 Ernest back into Sharnbrook ward. However, the latter would result in a -14% variance for Riseley and a 25% variance in Sharnbrook. Therefore, while we have moved Knotting & Souldrop and Thurleigh parishes into Riseley ward in our further draft recommendations, we have included Milton Ernest in Riseley ward also. We have also moved Pavenham parish into Sharnbrook, both to ensure Sharnbrook has good electoral equality, and in response to Pavenham Parish Council’s concerns about being included in a ward with two large villages, Clapham and Oakley, and wishing to be grouped with smaller parishes in north Bedford. Given the changes proposed here, we would particularly welcome comments on our proposals during the current consultation.

23 West Bedford

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Bromham 2 1% Clapham & Oakley 2 -7% Wootton & Kempston Rural 2 0%

Bromham and Clapham & Oakley 63 We received seven submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Clapham & Oakley, two of which – from Clapham and Oakley parish councils – were supportive. As mentioned previously, Pavenham Parish Council expressed concerns about being grouped with two much larger villages, and Stevington Parish Council

24 expressed similar concerns, suggesting either a maintenance of the status quo or the creation of another rural ward made up of similar-sized parishes. However, neither of these options are possible without a far more radical reorganisation of the wards for the entire rural area. The Conservative submission recommended grouping Stevington parish with the proposed Bromham ward, on the basis of Stevington’s far better road links with Bromham and Stagsden parishes, and to improve Bromham ward’s electoral equality. While we appreciate that Bromham and Turvey parishes have much the same combined electorate as Clapham and Oakley, we were satisfied that the inclusion of Stevington in Bromham ward follows the natural layout of the area and reflects local transport links. We have therefore adopted this proposal in our new draft recommendations.

Wootton & Kempston Rural 64 We received four submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Wootton & Kempston Rural ward, one of which was supportive, praising the movement of the boundary with Kempston West to the bypass. Two unsupportive submissions – from a resident and Wootton Parish Council – argued against multi- member wards, while another challenged the electoral forecast for the area and argued that Wootton should be its own two-member ward on the basis that it will “soon have over 6,000 voters”. However, Wootton is presently forecast to have 5,520 electors by 2026, which would give it a -15% variance as a two-member ward. We remain satisfied that the Council’s is the most accurate available forecast at this time and have therefore not adopted this suggestion in our further draft recommendations.

25 Conclusions

65 The table below shows the impact of our new draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2019 and 2026 electorate figures, against the proposed number of councillors and wards.

Summary of electoral arrangements

New draft recommendations

2019 2026 Number of councillors 46 46 Number of electoral wards 28 28 Average number of electors per councillor 2,829 3,237 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 12 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 3 0 from the average

New draft recommendations

Bedford Borough Council should be made up of 46 councillors serving 28 wards representing 13 single-councillor wards, 12 two-councillor wards and three three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Bedford Borough Council. You can also view our new draft recommendations for Bedford Borough Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk.

Parish electoral arrangements

66 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

67 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our

26 recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Bedford Borough Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

68 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Brickhill Parish Council, Elstow Parish Council, Kempston Town Council, and Kempston Rural Parish Council.

69 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Brickhill parish.

New draft recommendations Brickhill Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East 4 North 4 South 2 West 3 Woodlands Park 2

70 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Elstow parish.

New draft recommendations Elstow Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Progress Way 3 Village 6

71 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Kempston parish.

New draft recommendations Kempston Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Kempston Central & East 5 Kempston North 3 Kempston South 2 Kempston West 2

27 72 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Kempston Rural parish.

New draft recommendations Kempston Rural Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors The Ends 3 Wilkinson 6

28

29 Have your say 73 The Commission has an open mind about its new draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

74 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Bedford Borough Council, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

75 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

76 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Bedford) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE

77 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Bedford Borough Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

78 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

30 79 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Bedford?

80 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

81 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

82 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Westminster (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

83 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

84 In the light of representations received, we will review our new draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the new draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

85 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which

31 brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Bedford Borough Council in 2023.

32

33 Equalities 86 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

34

35 Appendices Appendix A New draft recommendations for Bedford Borough Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Biddenham 1 1,869 1,869 -34% 2,935 2,935 -9%

2 Brickhill 2 6,680 3,340 18% 6,744 3,372 4%

3 Bromham 2 5,722 2,861 1% 6,534 3,267 1%

4 Castle 2 5,608 2,804 -1% 6,163 3,082 -5%

5 Cauldwell 3 8,649 2,883 2% 10,631 3,544 9% Clapham & 6 2 5,319 2,660 -6% 6,027 3,014 -7% Oakley 7 De Parys 2 5,832 2,916 3% 6,821 3,411 5%

8 Goldington 2 6,244 3,122 10% 6,389 3,195 -1%

9 Great Barford 1 2,701 2,701 -5% 3,158 3,158 -2%

10 Great Denham 1 2,787 2,787 -1% 3,203 3,203 -1%

11 Harpur 2 5,344 2,672 -6% 6,137 3,069 -5%

12 Harrold 1 3,231 3,231 14% 3,312 3,312 2%

13 Kempston Central 2 6,773 3,387 20% 6,911 3,456 7% & East 36 Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 14 Kempston North 1 3,218 3,218 14% 3,279 3,279 1%

15 Kempston South 1 3,236 3,236 14% 3,255 3,255 1%

16 Kempston West 1 2,981 2,981 5% 3,491 3,491 8%

17 Kingsbrook 2 6,626 3,313 17% 6,524 3,262 1%

18 Newnham 1 2,891 2,891 2% 2,917 2,917 -10%

19 Priory 1 2,590 2,590 -8% 3,480 3,480 7%

20 Putnoe 2 6,367 3,184 13% 6,415 3,208 -1%

21 Queens Park 3 6,157 2,052 -27% 8,981 2,994 -8% Renhold & 22 1 2,975 2,975 5% 3,164 3,164 -2% Ravensden 23 Riseley 1 3,395 3,395 20% 3,400 3,400 5%

24 Sharnbrook 1 2,926 2,926 3% 3,422 3,422 6%

25 Shortstown 2 4,374 2,187 -23% 5,838 2,919 -10% Wixams & 26 3 7,005 2,335 -17% 10,336 3,445 6% Wilstead Wootton & 27 2 5,729 2,865 1% 6,504 3,252 0% Kempston Rural 28 Wyboston 1 2,902 2,902 3% 2,950 2,950 -9%

37 Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % Totals 46 130,131 – – 148,921 – –

Averages – – 2,829 – – 3,237 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Bedford Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

38 Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Biddenham 2 Brickhill 3 Bromham 4 Castle 5 Cauldwell 6 Clapham & Oakley 7 De Parys 8 Goldington 9 Great Barford

39 10 Great Denham 11 Harpur 12 Harrold 13 Kempston Central & East 14 Kempston North 15 Kempston South 16 Kempston West 17 Kingsbrook 18 Newnham 19 Priory 20 Putnoe 21 Queens Park 22 Renhold & Ravensden 23 Riseley 24 Sharnbrook 25 Shortstown 26 Wixams & Wilstead 27 Wootton & Kempston Rural 28 Wyboston

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all- reviews/eastern/bedfordshire/bedford

40 Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/eastern/bedfordshire/bedford

Political Groups

• Bedford Borough Council Conservative Group • Bedford Borough Council Labour Group • Bedford Borough Council Liberal Democrat Group • Bedford Green Party • Kempston Labour Party

Councillors

• Councillor K. Burley (Bedford Borough Council) • Councillor G. Coombes (Bedford Borough Council) • Councillor M. Jarman-Webb (Woodlands Park Parish Council) • Councillor M. Thompson (Thurleigh Parish Council) • Councillor M. Towler (Bedford Borough Council)* • Kempston borough councillors (Bedford Borough Council)

Members of Parliament

• Mohammad Yasin MP (Bedford)

Local Organisations

• All Saints Church • Castle Residents’ Association • Faith in Queens Park • Midland Road Area Residents’ Association

Parish and Town Councils

• Cardington Parish Council • Clapham Parish Council • Elstow Parish Council • Great Denham Parish Council • Kempston Town Council • Little Staughton Parish Council

41 • Oakley Parish Council • Pavenham Parish Council • Renhold Parish Council • Stevington Parish Council • Thurleigh Parish Council • Wilshamstead Parish Council • Wixams Parish Council • Wootton Parish Council

Local Residents

• 175 local residents

Anonymous

• One anonymous submission

* Made two submissions.

42 Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

43 Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

44 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE